Literature DB >> 3885105

Routine ultrasound screening for the prediction of gestational age.

S Campbell, S L Warsof, D Little, D J Cooper.   

Abstract

In a technician-oriented routine ultrasound program, the value of screening an entire obstetric population for predicting gestational age based on a single measurement was evaluated over selective scans performed on the basis of uncertain menstrual history. Consecutive pregnancies of 4527 women were scanned, and the results were analyzed. Gestational ages were determined by both menstrual history and ultrasonic crown-rump length or biparietal diameter (BPD) measurements. The estimated date of confinement based on ultrasound measurements was compared with menstrual history in its ability to predict the actual onset of spontaneous labor. Of patients with optimal menstrual history, 84.7% delivered within +/- two weeks of the date predicted. Only 69.7% delivered within +/- two weeks of the estimate date of confinement based on suspect menstrual history. Crown-rump length measurements were as predictive (84.6%) as optimal menstrual history. Biparietal diameter measurements done between 12 and 18 weeks' gestation were significantly more accurate in gestational predictions (89.4%) than those based on menstrual history (P less than .001). It is concluded that ultrasound cephalometry before 18 weeks is the single best dating parameter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3885105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  26 in total

1.  Are rural general practitioner--obstetricians performing too many prenatal ultrasound examinations? Evidence from western Labrador.

Authors:  E Thompson; D Freake; G Worrall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-02-10       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  "Remembrance and reflection".

Authors:  P F Hall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-02-10       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Toward point-of-care ultrasound estimation of fetal gestational age from the trans-cerebellar diameter using CNN-based ultrasound image analysis.

Authors:  Mohammad A Maraci; Mohammad Yaqub; Rachel Craik; Sridevi Beriwal; Alice Self; Peter von Dadelszen; Aris Papageorghiou; J Alison Noble
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2020-01-13

4.  Estimated date of delivery from last menstrual period and ultrasound scan: which is more accurate?

Authors:  S Rowlands; P Royston
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Does routine ultrasound scanning improve outcome in pregnancy? Meta-analysis of various outcome measures.

Authors:  H C Bucher; J G Schmidt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-07-03

6.  Estimating time of delivery.

Authors:  S Rowlands; P Royston
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Adverse Infant Outcomes Associated with Discordant Gestational Age Estimates.

Authors:  Nils-Halvdan Morken; Rolv Skjaerven; Jennifer L Richards; Michael R Kramer; Sven Cnattingius; Stefan Johansson; Mika Gissler; Siobhan M Dolan; Jennifer Zeitlin; Michael S Kramer
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.980

8.  Outcomes of neonates with birth weight⩽500 g: a 20-year experience.

Authors:  K Upadhyay; M Pourcyrous; R Dhanireddy; A J Talati
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 2.521

9.  Rapid and automatic assessment of early gestational age using computer vision and biometric measurements based on ultrasound video.

Authors:  Yuanyuan Pei; Wenjing Gao; Longjiang E; Changpin Dai; Jin Han; Haiyu Wang; Huiying Liang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-04

10.  Birth weight from pregnancies dated by ultrasonography in a multicultural British population.

Authors:  M Wilcox; J Gardosi; M Mongelli; C Ray; I Johnson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-09-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.